Talk:Victoria Beckham/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page is an Archive of the discussions from Victoria Beckham talk page (Discussion page). Please do not edit!

Unreleased music

I (Eagle Owl 17:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)) have placed this on here so that someone can clean this entry up, check the references and format them properly, and verify whether you can use forums for references on Wikipedia. The entry was also fairly messy, but I hope that someone can clean this up as it may be worth adding to the article. The entry stands as:

The facts behind the unreleased cd

Dee on the Denden forums [1] won the unreleased cd on eBay. At first the plan was to release the songs to fans on the forum who agreed to pay, to cover the costs of the cd. There was a group of people who signed up and were waiting for her to make copies.

During this time she gave reviews of each song. However over this time she started to fear the legal ramifications if Victoria's legal team was to find out that she was the start of the leak.

She then said in the forums that she would not be leaking the tracks due to legal reasons and the original seller had gotten the cd back. This was false.

She secretly invited certain members into a private forum on Denden[2]. This group of people was given watermarked tracks to prevent distribution and to track who leaked them if it did occur. Each member was given the full 20 tracks. Over time the forum was used to discuss each track.

However after close to a year Dee decided to leak the tracks online. Only of 11 of the tracks were leaked by the forums owner Dennis. They are edited versions that he edited himself. They attempted to change them to appear that they were from a different cd, not the work in progress one that Dee had purchased.

Dennis decided to leak them on another forum to avoid links back to DenDen[3].

It seems to be original research to me, as well as potentially libelous if it's false. A forum cannot be trusted to provide reliable information. I am giving the guy a day to provide the reliable sources, before it gets deleted. --Dark Falls ^talk 02:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment

This whole article reads like it was written by Posh's PR team. Her show may have been the third most watched, but it was beaten by a re run of Wife Swap, and 4 mil plus viewers is not a hit here.

The television section just states the facts. There is nothing wrong with that, and there is no getting away from the fact that it was actually the third most watched programme at the time. Eagle Owl 14:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This is third out of four primary networks competing.

I think it's best to let the facts speak for themselves without actually writing "disappointing". We must try to keep the section balanced and neutral. Let the facts speak for themselves.Eagle Owl 10:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think disappointing is more accurate. It was written as though this were a bronze medal, when in fact third means it is likely to get the hook.--71.32.3.199 17:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This article does seem to have been astroturfed. Meh. Add another one to the pile. --W.marsh 22:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

New heading

I was thinking maybe we should move some of the personal life information and make a new section called Early Life or something like that. We could include her family as well as the dance schools she went to. Also Victoria Beckham mentions in her autobiography Learning to Fly that before Spice Girls she was part of Persuasion a pop group that didnt really go nowhere. When she noticed that the Spice Girls was going to be more succesful she quit it. The part about being in Persuasion was on page 93 "The band was called Persuasion."

Birthplace/date of birth

There's a problem here. Two different places of birth (Goff's Oak/Harlow) are shown and two birthdates (April 17, 1973/April 17, 1974), in the introduction and the personal life section. That needs to be sorted. --Malcolmxl5 04:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Right now, due to BLP concerns, it would be wise to leave the year off. Might just do that myself. Miranda 05:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Birthdate issue sorted. Miranda 21:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Vulgarity? / vandalism

The solo career entries are littered with profanity that does not seem to be present in the source. Namely "it was shit" is used in reference to several of her solo songs. If a mod could look into this it would be appreciated.

IgnatzAmI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.69.81 (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We seem to have one or more very dedicated group of vandals who're constantly screwing with the content! I insist one of the admins semi-protect the page, especially from non-members. --Fshafique 02:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection for the page. For future reference, any editor can request protection at WP:RPP. --clpo13_(talk) 08:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been very close to nominating the page myself. If vandalism continues after September 25, 2007 when the protection runs out, I will re-nominate the page. Eagle Owl 09:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There is still a lot of obvious vandalism in this section. A mod should take a look at it again. 75.82.142.134 22:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Nickelback 'Posh Spice'

she is not in this video and on her page it says she is. that is someone named "Belenda". She has the same haircut. It isn't Victoria, that should not be on the page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.113.191.13 (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

2008 solo work

I haven't heard anything but on her page is says 2008-TBA underneath Albums. truuuuue??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.113.191.13 (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if it were true and not confirmed by the artist herself, under BLP, it should be removed. Wikipedia is not...not...not...a crystal ball. Miranda 14:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And it was indeed removed from the article on the grounds stated by Miranda. In fact someone had added that information to the article of every Spice Girl, and I went through and pulled it all out. Tabercil 17:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikified the article

I have just recently wikified the article to promote clarity and structure, also to help other users who intend to edit the article by providing some kind of guide. Hope it is to everyones satisfaction. --Rosario 15:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to be copyedited to reflect current standards. Hence, the copyedit tag. Miranda 06:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I just went through and gave a basic copy-edit/clarity edit. I was working out of the editing box more than the visual article, so it may still have some creative punctuation. I didn't see (or correct) enough punctuation errors (cited as original reason for tag) to feel comfortable removing the tag. Was there a specific section that needed attention in the article? I'd be happy to do it more carefully.--LKAdriaan 09:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

1 or 2 sentences serving as paragraphs. Some sentences need citing such as "her friendship with Kate and Tom". Spelling and grammar issues. Miranda 23:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal date

In both David autobiography (Both feet on the Ground) and Victorias (learning to fly) they both mention going to a house in August 1997 where David proposed instead of the January 24, 1998 date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.14.152 (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Starting date

They started the Spice Girls in 1994 not 1993. That article that you cite is not very accurate it also says Victoria Beckham was born in 1975.

This is the one Im talking about http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/2392401.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.14.152 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You are quite correct, I've now changed the start date. BBC News is normally a very accurate source, but maybe we've been let down this one time. Maybe the source was referring to when Beckham asnwered the ad in 1993, if that is correct in itself. I think we can trust the source for the rest of the information it provides. Thanks. Eagle Owl (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine I mean the BBC is usually like youve said a good source and youve done an awesome job with all the other citations. I'm still pretty sure though she answered for it in March though because her autobiography says she saw it in March 1994 and then auditioned for it on March the 27th.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.14.152 (talk • contribs)

Image of book

Do you think one of us should upload an image of her book to illustrate on the page? miranda 04:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done added. miranda 06:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Soccer v. football

Since the subject is British, I think consensus should be reached that "football" should be used per this. miranda 23:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

'Fake' articles and vandalism

Articles relating to Victoria Beckham that are constantly deleted and resurrected by the same three users ( Girls alouds biggest fan, Surfer-boy94, & 59.100.199.1 -- who are all quite possibly the same person) include the following:

Open Your Eyes (Unreleased album) - which has been deleted at least 4 times as per: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Your Eyes (Victoria Beckham album)

The Hustla‎ (fake single with fan-made cover art)

I'd Give It All Away‎ (fake single with fan-made cover art)

Aswell as vandalism to:

My Love Is For Real (Victoria Beckham song)‎ - (adding fake fan-made cover art and making up dates and "info")

Template:Victoria Beckham (adding links to all said fake articles)

My constant attempts to simply add redirects to Victoria Beckham have been futile as one of said users just reverts.

These articles are nothing but fan made nonsense with fan-sites and music blogs as the "sources", if any, aswell as links to illegal download sites. Something needs to be done to keep them deleted without being resurected yet again. Who can help? Celebrity-Benji (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ask on the administrator notice board to salt the pages in question. miranda 12:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Miranda, you're a star. :) Celebrity-Benji (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Mods have now deleted and protected all Open Your Eyes pages, they cannot be recreated, and if the redirects on the other pages are lifted, they will also protect them. Issue resolved, hopefully! :) Celebrity-Benji (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This raises a good question. There is a reference to the album Open Your Eyes in the V.B article. It's absolutely not notable or substantial enough for a wiki article, but should a reference to it be deleted. It has two citations next to it, but what does anyone think? Also is My Love Is For Real, a real song? Eagle Owl (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Becasue fans leaked the collection of songs as an "album" they titled Open Your Eyes, mainstream media picked up on that and went with it; this is what said users who keep resurrecting pages are using as sources. The CD sold on eBay containing the tracks (where the leaked tracks are sourced) was only a demo CD and had no title at all at time of sale. It's not a real album, and it's reference in the main article should also be deleted. Celebrity-Benji (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I saw this at AN/I and have put this and other relevant pages on my watchlist. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The entire article should conform to one variant concerning national spelling and grammar - British English, in this case, given Beckham's nationality. There had been some minor issues with American English still being used in various places, but I went ahead and changed those myself. On the whole, the writing was excellent.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Some sources are a bit on the tabloid side, but scholarly works on Posh Spice are likely difficult to come by.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good job covering her various careers and interests.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Although issues seemed to have been raised on the talk page, I could find no evidence of blatant fawning nor mockery; everything seemed to be written in a strictly factual and objective manner.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   I could find no evidence of recent warring.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I had lingered a bit due to the book cover, but after re-reading the fair use criteria, I'm satisfied this usage is not in violation.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Well done. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your time reviewing the article, it's much appreciated! Totally understand what you mean about the citations, but because there is just so much stuff on the web about her it was sometimes hard to find relevant information. Many thanks again. Eagle Owl (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture

That's really not a flattering picture of her. I mean her face looks tired, you can see her skin folding over her top under her armpit and I'm not sure if that's glitter on her chest or sweat. Are there any better uncopyrighted pictures? Dantai Amakiir (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Princess Alexandra Hospital (Harlow)

Can someone change the link for the Princess Alexandra Hospital to the correct one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.246.161 (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Gsmgm (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Occupation

Is it just me or is the introduction a little bit misleading? It seems to be a common theme on these articles that despite being predominantly known as a singer (in this case) the subject is described as having a rather preposterous number of occupations. This is presumably quite confusing for someone who has never heard of Victoria Beckham as they would, from the introduction to this article, view her as some sort of all round artist who writes songs, authors books, dances, designs fashion and acts. In reality she is a singer who has been involved in a number of side projects which cash in on her celebrity status - she is not an actress for being in a film playing herself and having a cameo in a TV series: if Alfred Hitchcock is not described as an actor for making cameos in numerous pieces of cinematic history then it stands to reason that Victoria Beckham doesn't meet the criteria.

This isn't about having a go at her, it's simply about accuracy and ensuring that someone reading the article has an understanding of who she actually is and not some bizarre conception of her which seems to exist for no other reason than to emphasise her talents (be that as they may). Blankfrackis (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If we knew exactly how much work she has done in each field, we could try to work out what professions should be included in the lead and infobox. You're right in saying that the lead portrays her as having many jobs when she is essentially a singer who has done a little bit of a few other things. Jim Michael (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Breast implants removed

I have no idea if that's important - maybe it is not completely wrong for an FA article to mention that fact ?! http://top.de/4Fr-Vicky-wo-sind-denn-deine-Brueste-hin#.A1000006 --217.228.121.55 (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Discography: albums

Does anyone feel that the Albums charts contains wrong chart positions seem she had quite a success with her first album. Isreal #4 China #2 Japan #6 and Brazil #5.

I mean it was hard enough for the girls to break into the Asian market but Victoria to break into it alone? The source citations are wrongly put there to as it leads on to Geri's other albums with no apparent evidence to show these positions are real. --DoctorStrange7 (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Surname

The surname is inconsistent through-out the whole article, it makes for poor reading in parts. It jumps from Adams to Beckham in some places. Govvy (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

She was Adams until July 1999, and has been Beckham since then. We can't say Victoria Beckham was born in Harlow or Victoria Beckham joined the Spice Girls, as she was Adams then. We have to use Beckham since her marriage as she has always used her married surname since she married. Jim Michael (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the MoS strongly encourages using one surname or otherwise name for the person in the article. She was born Victoria Adams, but has been known as Victoria Beckham since shortly after the birth of her first child (the couple married only a few months later). Take a look at Sarah Palin and Michelle Malkin; even though the women were born with different last names, the article only uses their current one. I've since made the appropriate fixes to this article. ★Dasani★ 04:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that quite inappropriate? reading this wiki page is the reason why wikipedia will never be a reliable source. She was born Victoria Adams, media don't call her "beckham" as this wiki page keep referring her to as. Yes, her legal name is Victoria Beckham. But under early life "Beckham was born to Jacqueline and Anthony Adams" is just wrong and bad writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Den525 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The media does refer to her as Beckham now, so I don't know what you're trying to say. Yes, perhaps in the past, she was Adams, but it hasn't been that way for awhile. Additionally, this is not the right place to discuss this. It's a MoS thing.

I have also noticed that the article has funny wording, though. Most of them just say, "___ was born in ___". Perhaps we need a source to verify her position in the family and start off with that, rather than saying who she was born to? Anyone care to add that? Estheroliver (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)